OK so a lot of times when I say a character is more skilled than the other people just say its because the choreography is different but the skill level is equal or the character I'm arguing against is more skilled even if his fights are badly choreographed.
Doesn't bad choreography mean the character is fighting like an idiot?
If a character beats someone that fights like an absolute idiot, we cannot just say that just the choreography is bad. Or that character is still more skilled than someone else who has better choreography.
For example -
I say that Diana from the DCEU was nerfed in her fight scenes in JL when compared to BvS. She was not fighting anything like she did before. And there are some other things too which point to that but people just say the fights scenes are choreographed differently. The character is on the same level as before regardless of how she fights now.
Same for MCU Thor. People bring up the agents he fought in his first movie as a showing of his skill however those guys were fighting on the same level as a bunch of high middle school kids fighting.
Now same for a lot of Bourne vs Superhero TV show characters. Now I don't watch the shows so I cannot exactly make a comment on this one but I've heard a lot of times people saying that the choreography in Bourne movies is much better so doesn't that simply mean he's better in skill?
And the BvS Warehouse fight where people argue that Batman was tagged multiple times but the truth is that the fodder was high quality and they were choreographed well.
Normally fodder comes at you in ones but here they were smart.
Imo it's very important how well a fight scene is choreographed when we are discussing skill because fodder is not created equally and the characters sometimes get nerfed so they are worse when fighting.
If a character goes against someone who never displays skill but is stated to be skilled or if the character was displaying more skill in their previous iteration wouldn't that mean they are not very skilled or are nerfed?